New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-07-07
.JUDGE DEADps DECIsIOM.

yJIOOE DG4Ox'0 D&O<~AN~'s
II Judge Deady's decision is correct, the
interstate law, in its chief purpose and what
was intended to be its most important provision.
ia as empty and impotent as the Pope's bull
against the comet The one change OF all
others which advocates of the law most desired
tn bring about by its enactment was the pro-
hibition of lower rates for competing than ior
non-competing traffic. Take that feature from
the act and it has left some sensible and useiul
provisions. it is true, and some others which
arc impracticable and useless but it works no
important change in the methods Of commerce
or transportation. One may realize how empty
the law thus interpreted would be by consider
ing that it would have received scarcely one
of the many votes finally cast for it In the
House If it had been understood that the Sen
ate's amendments left the railroads free to
uake what rates they pleased for through Oh
competing traffic, only requiring railroads TO
adjust charges for local OF non-competing'
traffic so far according to distance that the
higher rate on such traffic should never be
charged for the shorter haulaee. Mr.. Reagan
himself would not have voted for the bill, MOI
would the other leaders in agitation and de-
bate on that side.
Yet it is not safe hastily to conclude that
Judge Deady's decision is worthless because
radically opposed to the chief intent Of the
act. 1t happens that the chief intent of the
House was radically opposed to the chief in
tent Of the Senate. The record proves that
the precise language in which the Senate en-
bodied its intent was finally accepted by the
House. True, it was accented with claim
that the language did not mean what the
Senate supposed, and would be interpreted by
courts in harmony with the will of the House.
But it was accepted, nevertheless on a venture,
so to speak. Mr. Reagan has since declared
that he and his friends would assuredly pass
stronger act if this one should be "enEascu-
lated" by the Interpretation in question.
1t is found already that the Interstate Com
mission does not agree with the Interpretation
Of the House as respects competition with
water lines 1t has decided that, where traffic
at one point completes and at another docs not
compete with water lines. the - circumstances
and conditions" are not substantially similar
and the short haul provision has no application
or restraining force whatever. In comments
on this decision The TRIBUNE urged that
the distinction between water and rail compe-
tition which the Commission set up might not
be recognized W the courts as having any va
lidity. Indeed, The TRIBUNE has urged
from the first that common sense interpreta-
ton would make the phrase . under substan-
TALLY similar circumstances and conditions
entirely nullify the short haul clause as tc
through or competing traffic. That common
sense Interpretation appears to be the ono
adopted by the Judge of the United States CIR
cult Court for Oregon.
His opinion. however, is less important than
the cases he cites, in which the United States
Supreme Court has almost interpreted this law
in advance. Higher rates having been charged
by the Union Pacific for transporting soldiers
to Ogden than to San Francisco. a longer
distance, the court decided that the service
{" in transporting local passengers from one
point to another Is not identical with the
service rendered in transporting a through
passenger over the same rails" The word
Is Identical may mean less or more than " IN
der substantially similar circumstances and
conditions, but the court held that the differ
ence between through and local traffic was
sufficient to justify higher rate for the
shorter distance. Judge Deady's reasoning is
that {" a railroad corporation has the right to
live" If it cannot get through traffic except
at rates fixed by competition, it has right to
get that traffic at lower tate than it charges
for non-conpeting traffic. III this reasoning
is sound at all it applies as well to competi
ton between railroads as to competition with
water routes, which the Commission admits the
act does not restrain. But if sustained by the
Supreme Court, this Interpretation will leave
the Interstate act, at least in It's most ill.,
portant section, a monument of the supreme
foolishness of Democratic lawmakers.